Elon Musk and his Tesla Motors may be receiving kudos from everyone ranging from equity investors to Time magazine to crash-test regulators to the wealthy car-buying public, but one auto writer in the Northeast is taking the electric-vehicle maker to task for not deploying its Supercharger vehicle-recharging network as quickly as advertised.

Another five Superchargers will be open by the end of the week of September 19.

See, originally, Tesla said 18 new Superchargers would be opened by the end of this summer, but just nine are now operational, Green Car Reports says. GCR asked a Tesla spokesperson, who said that another five Superchargers will be open by the end of the week of September 19 (just in time for summer to end). Tesla's own map shows Superchargers coming soon to Waco, TX, and Rockford, IL. GCR also notes that the working stations are concentrated on the West Coast, and that Superchargers earmarked for Rhode Island, Virginia and New Jersey haven't yet seen the light of day. Tesla's official map says 21 Superchargers are open today.

Supercharging is free and can recharge to 50 percent capacity in about 20 minutes, but limited to Model S sedans. Hoi polloi driving other plug-ins are thus left out of the party. Tesla envisions 100 Superchargers open across North America and says that each station costs around $250,000 to open up.

Tesla Information

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

They have been used to cross the country for free. WTF are you talking about? Your own narrow interests? Can't Tesla look after their own interests? Are you an American or a free man? I am guessing not, probably authoritarian communist. Get back in the Texas legislature, loser!!

Anonymous

1 Year Ago

As others have posted, this piece is inaccurate, biased, and just plain poor journalism. As posted, with new public Tesla EVSE that has recently come on line and newswires stating more Tesla EVSE is coming soon, and new sites being worked on, this piece is not connected to reality. If the writer wants to complain and or bring attention to public EVSE that should be installed, then look at NRG's promise to California's Governor Brown to make up for their consumer gouging by having their eVgo division install public EVSE to compensate the state. There hasn't been any eVgo EVSE installed to make up for their bad behavior (NRG did not keep their promise). That is a crime. All plugins use public level-2 EVSE, so all plugin drivers should put pressure on NRG to make good on this. Especially the huge public EVSE gap between California northern border down highway-5 to the Mexican border. {brucedp.150m.com}

These are not EVSEs, they are chargers. AC "chargers" are EVSEs, these actually are chargers,they rectify the power and control the voltage. EVGO installed a DC charger last week. It was covered on this blog. The installations were to begin after the SAE DC combo charging standard was ratified. This happened about a month ago, and so the charger installs began.

DC QCs definitely quality as an "EVSE" or Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment, though bruce's use of the term there is definitely awkward and really should just use Supercharger. Not sure what the holdup with eVgo is, but their rollout sure is slow. I doubt that Blink/Ecotality minds all that much, but at least Blink must be happy that eVgo's initial pricing ($9/session) is significantly higher than what they are currently charging ($5/session).

EvGo is being compelled to do this, they aren't doing it because they want to. So they didn't do at as soon as possible, but as late as possible. The agreement said they had to install chargers once there were two DC charging standards. So they waited until SAE DC combo was ratified. The EVGO charging prices are absurd, I agree.

Anonymous

7 Months Ago

The problem with this article isn't the total number of new or existing super chargers. The problem with this article is the lack of facts. This article was posted on Sunday September 15th, 2013. This article states: "Tesla's own map shows Superchargers coming soon to Waco, TX, and Rockford, IL." However Rockford, IL went live on 9/12 - http://t.co/im05qkB8f2 and Waco, TX went live on 9/10 - http://t.co/LZyecE3Igt. The only way this could have been factual is if the author created the article on 9/9 and just didn't publish the article for a week later. Other than that, the article is incorrect. However as the author mentioned, more superchargers are coming on this week. Tesla just updated its map to show a total of 27 charging stations, adding an additional location in FL and now one in CO. We'll see how many are left for the week and what our total eventually becomes. The facts - http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger

Wow, what poor reporting! You yourself admit in the article that "Tesla's official map says 21 Superchargers are open today.". That is 3 more than Tesla has originally promised by the end of Summer 2013! How can you possibly claim that "Tesla is lagging"? Did you learn elementary math in grade 2? That 21 is greater than 18?

Elementary math is important, but reading is fundamental. The operative word that you're missing is "new", as in "Tesla said 18 NEW Superchargers would be opened by the end of this summer". I believe at the time Tesla made that statement that there were 6 superchargers in CA, and two on the east coast, meaning that by the end of summer 2013 there should be at least 26 total superchargers (8 existing + 18 new = 26 total superchargers).

I was good friends with the general manager of the Barstow hotel where one of the first of the Superchargers was deployed. Tesla apparently had a great deal of negotiating to do with property owners, utilities, city/county planning and elected officials each willing to kill the deal unless they got their way. Can you imagine having to deal with that at each location? Given the hurdles, I think what they've done and what they're planning is phenomenal.

While one can complain (I do, I want one in Toronto before I would think about buying) consider that we are not expecting Nissan to put chargers across the continent, or for Honda to be putting in CNG stations for their so equiped Civics. (In fact VW is apparently waiting for the infrastructure to appear before even considering releaseing CNG models for NA) Remember that the supercharger is an advertising cost, and not a revenue source, and Tesla is having no trouble selling S's.

The Superchargers *are* a source of revenue for Tesla. They make more power via solar PV than they draw from the grid, which creates a net gain. That power - sold back to the utilities - eventually pays the capital cost of building the station. In the long run, the Supercharger stations are likely to be of value to Tesla as an income stream. Musk is a very clever man, and he doesn't give anything away for free. "Each solar power system is designed to generate more energy from the sun over the course of a year than is consumed by Tesla vehicles using the Supercharger. This results in a slight net positive transfer of sunlight generated power back to the electricity grid. In addition to lowering the cost of electricity, this addresses a commonly held misunderstanding that charging an electric car simply pushes carbon emissions to the power plant. The Supercharger system will always generate more power from sunlight than Model S customers use for driving." http://www.teslamotors.com/fr_FR/about/press/releases/tesla-motors-launches-revolutionary-supercharger-enabling-convenient-long-dista

"If you think Tesla is generating excess solar electricity, then that means they put in significant solar farms, becuse just covering the charger stations won't do it. So that means they leased land other than the charger stations. And that means they could have leased that land and built those farms and never built the charger stations at all." That's what I thought, because that's what Tesla and Musk *claimed*. I understand that those claims are apparently false. Thanks for beating a dead horse, though. "Each solar power system is designed to generate more energy from the sun over the course of a year than is consumed by Tesla vehicles using the Supercharger. This results in a slight net positive transfer of sunlight generated power back to the electricity grid." http://www.teslamotors.com/fr_FR/about/press/releases/tesla-motors-launches-revolutionary-supercharger-enabling-convenient-long-dista

Letstakeawalk: Virtually none of the superchargers have solar panels. That was another Musk exaggeration. And the idea that if they did then they wouldn't be giving anything away is false. The power generated from solar panels has value. If Tesla gives it away, it would be the same as giving away power they purchased, just at a slightly lower rate (sale price instead of purchase price). Ryan: There's no evidence of that, and even if they were, a solar panel is almost 2 square meters and generates only 1kWh of power a day (in a good location, in the US Northeast, far less). So to charge one car up per day (60kWh) would take 60 panels, that's about 100 square meters, or 1,000 sq feet. That's about 6 parking spots worth of space. For one car a day. In California/Arizona. There is no way that Tesla really put in enough panels at the charger locations to cover the power used by the Superchargers. It was just spin.

I doubt very seriously that as a business model that would fully pay for the levelized cost of energy over the net 5 to 10 years (LCOE). Let alone the gross costs for the entire stations. Though if other OEM's decide to license use of the stations, or if the stations were sold as a business unit to a third party there could be a substantial return for Tesla.

Letstakeawalk: There is no excess solar power, and again, even if there were, it's not valueless. By "giving" it to owners, he is essentially buying it on their behalf by not selling it. The solar thing is a canard, whether surplus or deficit. The electricity that Tesla is putting into these cars costs them money. If you think Tesla is generating excess solar electricity, then that means they put in significant solar farms, becuse just covering the charger stations won't do it. So that means they leased land other than the charger stations. And that means they could have leased that land and built those farms and never built the charger stations at all. So no matter how you slice it, the solar is not paying for the charger stations. The charger stations are a separate expense and maintenance costs. If Tesla goes into the solar business as a revenue stream to try to cover for those expenses, then fine. But they're no bundle, it's misleading to try to connect the two from a business perspective.

That's what I get for trying to defend Musk, I suppose. Rotation is correct - Musk's early comments were a gross distortion of what actually was implemented. Only "select" stations have solar panels. "And the idea that if they did then they wouldn't be giving anything away is false." I didn't saying he wasn't giving anything away. I said he wasn't giving it away "for free". Of course that power given away to Tesla drivers has a value, and a cost. Tesla owners pay part of that cost when they buy their car, and the excess solar power (as I originally understood Musk's statement to mean the solar capacity would be greater than the amount used) is sold back to the utility - so that power is paid for by the utility customers.

They are highly visible reminders(placed in high traffic areas) that electric vehicles are viable long distance vehicles. Tesla does not want to invest in dealerships(land, salespeople, middlemen, etc) so the superchargers are important way to show people that they have a local presence even if sales and service are handled remotely.

Unless I am TOTALLY senseless... I remember it being Solar City who is putting in the panels on behalf of Tesla, per their agreement. And who knows where in Cali and AZ mostly they go but they all connect to the grid of course and therefore can produce more than they draw, both on behalf of Tesla. They put up more panels SOMEWHERE than Superchargers draw, always. That's how it will always be in the red and work for all parties.

purrpullberra: You are holding onto a dream that is over. Tesla isn't talking about it anymore, you'd do well to face the reality that they aren't following through on the solar part. They immediately began to downplay it when questioned for details. "Many of them will be solar powered" was Musk's revised claim. Even that was an exaggeration, it's more like a few.

Nissan put in more DC fast chargers than Tesla this year actually. They put them in in Nissan dealerships though. This is not an option Tesla has since they eschew dealerships. The chargers are free for LEAF owners to use. Although it's not as straightforward as the Tesla chargers because the chargers have no way to distinguish between LEAFs and other CHAdeMO cars (Mitsubishi is), so the dealer has to have someone look at your car and then activate the charger for you. And Nissan put L2 chargers in years ago in their dealerships. You can't drive cross country on the Nissan chargers, because the LEAF range is too short to get between dealerships in some areas of the country, and you can only fast charge about 7 times a day (about 450 miles range).

Nissan is putting in chargers at the dealers, they have dealers from coast to coast. Tesla lists the chargers as a marketing cost not an advertising cost. Tesla is reputed to have no advertising budget. Though if millions of cars pass by signs which say Tesla, it looks a lot like advertising. I don't know I'm just a designer, not a marketer.

Superchargers are neither a marketing nor advertising cost. They committed to the service if you buy their cars, that makes it not fall under marketing or advertising which you can discontinue at any time if you want. It's a promotional cost, like a 0% financing deal. It would be amortized into the cost of making and selling the vehicle for accounting purposes, not as a separate advertising or marketing cost.

Currently there are 30 superchargers open. There are going to be 5 more open by the end of the month. Many more in the planning/stage. What's the problem? Only morons would criticize what they have done so far and continuing to do. No one else ( or other car company ) have done so much from being a startup.

The guy who wrote the original article -David Noland- has a reputation of endlessly whining about real but mostly perceived shortcomings of Tesla, all under the guise of being a fan and and owner. He wrote the only double car test I'm aware off in which the Model S just marginally beats the Chevy Volt. That should say it all.

This is some pretty bad reporting. Not only is it a poorly written summary of an article on another site I read, it's actually out of date nearly a week before it was published. This Rockford and Waco superchargers are already online. The other ev sites already reported that. Maybe that will be next weeks article here. Reading ABG is starting to feel like talking to a Chevy salesman about the Volt.

They have a very odd thing here - the 'que.' I have hat tipped stories many times, and in response....silence. So I made my normal response, of good natured sarcasm towards Sebastian, and ONE TIME he finally responded. A sniffy, 'we already KNEW about this, but had the story in the que' so it could be released at the BEST TIME for all of us. Unlike realclearenergy.org, which posts stories as they....are published. So in this case, they released it a week late for YOUR OWN GOOD. Speaking of the Volt, did you ever see the Volt Dancers? Dear lord....

@ EZEE When I first saw the "Volt dancers", I thought , ah..well thats sort of cute ! That's because I had assumed they were just some kids who worked for a dealer, and put on this little amateur performance. ( I thought the well nourished blonde was kinda cute, and the black girl was sexy, and the guy was certainly energetic ! ) But when I learned that GM marketing had commissioned this as a professional performance instead of 'They Might Be Giants' ."Electric Car" , my reaction was the same as yours ! GM's marketing division certainly needs a drastic re-organization ! By which I mean, sack those responsible, hiring some new brilliant marketing people the US has in abundance, get daring, and spend some real money supporting GM's best product for decades ! ( Yeah, I agree, "realclearenergy.org," is a brilliant site )